CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
MEDIUM

CVE-2026-16768

CVE-2026-16768 — Gdk-pixbuf: out-of-bounds read in ico parser

A flaw was found in gdk-pixbuf. When parsing a specially crafted ICO file with pixel values that exceed the defined palette range, an out-of-bounds read can occur due to improper bounds checking against the actual palette size. This vulnerability causes heap bytes to be interpreted as valid palette indices and rendered as RGB pixel values in the output image, allowing an attacker to extract heap content via the generated output, such as a thumbnail.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, redhat

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

gnome

6 products listed

CVSS base

5.3

MEDIUM

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

PoC

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

Yes

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (2)

gnomeredhat

Products (6)

gdk pixbufred hat enterprise linux 10red hat enterprise linux 6red hat enterprise linux 7red hat enterprise linux 8red hat enterprise linux 9

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
5.3CVSS 3.1MEDIUM——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-125

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • gnomeevery CVE for this vendor
  • redhatevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-125other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.